Joseph Smith's Jupiter Pendant
Ron Boutwell
pendant in his pocket at the time he was martyred. Again, aledgedly it was
a "masonic jewel" as it was referred to by his widow. However, I have seen a
picture of this pendant. The emblams and inscriptions upon it are not
masonic at all. Trust me on that one. I have been a 32nd degree Freemason
for many years and have studied the symbols. This was not a masonic
pendant.
My question: What was it? I've heard it referred to as a Jupiter pendant
too. However, I am not familiar with that term.
Charney Hoffmann
I don't know all of the details, but since no one else has attempted
an answer, I'll repeat to you what I remember reading in D. Michael
Quinn's book "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View."
The silver pendant was indeed a Jupiter pendant. Joseph Smith was
born in the astrological year governed by Jupiter, and he was born in
the first "Decan" of Capricorn, also governed by Jupiter. So some
scholars speculate that Joseph Smith wore the pendant for some
astrological significance.
Also, the pendant matches exactly the description of a Jupiter pendant
as contained in a book called the Magus (but I forget who wrote the
Magus). The similarity of Smith's pendant to the one illustrated in
the Magus is an indication to D. Michael Quinn that Joseph Smith was
familiar with the Magus, since most other "magic" books had different
descriptions of a Jupiter pendant. If you want all of the details, I
recommend Quinn's book. You can get it at www.signaturebooks.com
Charney
Charney Hoffmann
> "Ron Boutwell" <bout...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<1027vjb...@news.supernews.com>...
> > Can anyone shed light on this topic. Alegedly, Joseph Smith had a silver
> > pendant in his pocket at the time he was martyred. Again, aledgedly it was
> > a "masonic jewel" as it was referred to by his widow. However, I have seen a
> > picture of this pendant. The emblams and inscriptions upon it are not
> > masonic at all. Trust me on that one. I have been a 32nd degree Freemason
> > for many years and have studied the symbols. This was not a masonic
> > pendant.
BTW, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View is an excellent book,
but you have to take some of it with a grain of salt. Quinn likes to
quote the D&C, substituting "[occult]" for "hidden", whenever "hidden"
occurs in the text.
He changes D&C 76: 7 from "And to them will I reveal all mysteries,
yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old..."
to
"And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the [occult]
mysteries of my kingdom from days of old..."
Still, it's a good book for those who want to find out about Joseph
Smith's interest in folk magic.
Charney
Guy R. Briggs
>
> Can anyone shed light on this topic. Alegedly, Joseph Smith
> had a silver pendant in his pocket at the time he was
> martyred. Again, aledgedly it was a "masonic jewel" as it
> was referred to by his widow. However, I have seen a picture
> 32nd degree Freemason for many years and have studied the
> symbols. This was not a masonic pendant.
>
> My question: What was it? I've heard it referred to as a
> Jupiter pendant too. However, I am not familiar with that
> term.
>
owned the so-called Jupiter Talisman. It came from Wilford Wood, who
was told it by Charlie Bidaman, who was told it by his father, Louis
Bidaman, who was Emma's second husband and a non-Mormon not too
friendly to the LDS Church. No talisman was listed among Joseph's
personal effects after his assasination.
bestRegards, Guy.
E. Mark Ping
Ron Boutwell <bout...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Can anyone shed light on this topic. Alegedly, Joseph Smith had a silver
>pendant in his pocket at the time he was martyred.
On further review, I managed to find a reference that looks pretty
comprehensive to me. It's on an LDS apologetics site that I respect
as well, so that's a bonus to me:
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/morm201/m20117b.html#enloc105
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
E. Mark Ping
>pendant in his pocket at the time he was martyred.
IIRC, the account is disputed--the coroner's report didn't include
that in the list of items on the body.
My notes are that the talisman was first mentiond in 1938 by Charles
Bidamon. Bidamon was a son of Lewis Bidamon and Emma (Joseph's widow,
who married Bidamon some time after Joseph's death). Unfortunately I
can't find my original sources, so I can't point to a reference.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Charney Hoffmann
I've heard good things about FAIR too, but I'm unimpressed by their
denial of the Jupiter talisman. The truth is that the Church
purchased multiple items from Bidamon, none of which are considered to
be fraudulent. Bidamon died long before it was discovered that the
pendant Smith wore was a Magic talisman rather than a masonic symbol.
He couldn't have had any idea that the pendant would later impeach
Smith in so many people's minds.
Furthermore, the Church claimed for 40 years that the pendant belonged
to Smith. It took almost 10 years after the discovery that the
pendant was a magic talisman for apologists to deny it was Smith's.
I noted in the FAIR article points out that Bidamon was the
illegitimate son of Emma's non-Mormon husband. <GASP!> Illigitimate?
non-Mormon? Non of that information is even relevant.
I also noticed that FAIR discounts the possibility that EMMA wouldn't
have known about the talisman. However, it is very reasonable that
she wouldn't have known about the talisman because the magic books
that discuss it specifically state that the talisman must remain a
secret from all but the one who wears it. In other words, Emma not
knowing about it until he died is hardly proof that Smith didn't own
it and wear it around his neck until he died.
I don't intend to go over every problem with the article. My only
source is Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View", so I'll
just recommend that book. For me, the important issue is why the
Church hasn't called into question any of the other artifacts
purchased from Bidamon, if Bidamon is such a fraud.
Charney
E. Mark Ping
Charney Hoffmann <charney_c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I noted in the FAIR article points out that Bidamon was the
>illegitimate son of Emma's non-Mormon husband. <GASP!> Illigitimate?
> non-Mormon? Non of that information is even relevant.
It's entirely relevant. Illegitimate means the child (Charlie) might
not have had the same relationship with Emma as a natural child might.
Non-Mormon *and not friendly* to the LDS church was what the article
claimed, with respect to Charlie's father Lewis. So you have a man
who was 15 years old when Emma died making claims about an artifact of
Joseph's which he only heard later from his (not friendly to the LDS
church) father. Not a primary or even a secondary source. Oh, and
the claim was made 58 years after Emma died.
>I also noticed that FAIR discounts the possibility that EMMA wouldn't
>have known about the talisman. However, it is very reasonable that
>she wouldn't have known about the talisman because the magic books
>that discuss it specifically state that the talisman must remain a
>secret from all but the one who wears it. In other words, Emma not
>knowing about it until he died is hardly proof that Smith didn't own
>it and wear it around his neck until he died.
Except if Emma didn't know about it and it's supposed need for
secrecy, it would have been listed in his effects when he died, don't
you think? Or she might have mentioned it at some point? At any
rate, Emma made no mention about it on record at all.
No, there is only one source for the existence of the talisman, and
that's Bidamon himself, 58 years after Emma died, when he was trying
to sell it. Surely one should at least be skeptical of the claim.
>I don't intend to go over every problem with the article. My only
>source is Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View", so I'll
>just recommend that book.
I simply can't accept Quinn's work at face value, after perusing his
later "Same Sex Dynamics..." and noting his problems afterward.
Besides, the FAIR article footnotes Quinn's book as well, so it's not
as if it's ignored.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
father of peace
>I simply can't accept Quinn's work at face value, after perusing his
>later "Same Sex Dynamics..." and noting his problems afterward.
Just because someone is a sinner doesn't mean that they
are disqualified from understanding LdS doctrine, practice,
and history.
Love,
Absalom
--
Absalom's Iconoclastic Collection
http://www.absalom.com/mormon
E. Mark Ping
father of peace <absal...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
>>I simply can't accept Quinn's work at face value, after perusing his
>>later "Same Sex Dynamics..." and noting his problems afterward.
>
>Just because someone is a sinner doesn't mean that they
>are disqualified from understanding LdS doctrine, practice,
>and history.
Of course not. We're all sinners. However when the researcher slants
his research to justify or legitimize his sin, they *are* disqualified
from being a trustworthy research source.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Charney Hoffmann
> In article <102nftf...@news.supernews.com>,
> Charney Hoffmann <charney_c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I noted in the FAIR article points out that Bidamon was the
> >illegitimate son of Emma's non-Mormon husband. <GASP!> Illigitimate?
> > non-Mormon? Non of that information is even relevant.
>
> It's entirely relevant. Illegitimate means the child (Charlie) might
> not have had the same relationship with Emma as a natural child might.
> Non-Mormon *and not friendly* to the LDS church was what the article
> claimed, with respect to Charlie's father Lewis. So you have a man
> who was 15 years old when Emma died making claims about an artifact of
> Joseph's which he only heard later from his (not friendly to the LDS
> church) father. Not a primary or even a secondary source. Oh, and
> the claim was made 58 years after Emma died.
In other words, Emma would have never given Charles the pendant
because she probably wasn't very close to him. This argument ignores
the fact that Charles had many other artifacts that he got from Emma.
Somehow Charles was close enough to Emma to get those, but not close
enough to her to get the one item that challenges the LDS
misconception of a non-magical Smith.
> Except if Emma didn't know about it and it's supposed need for
> secrecy, it would have been listed in his effects when he died, don't
> you think? Or she might have mentioned it at some point? At any
> rate, Emma made no mention about it on record at all.
For this argument to be convincing, we would have to have a reasonable
expectation that the list items on Smith at his time of death was
exhaustive. Unfortunately, we know that the list was NOT exhaustive.
His gun and his hat are two items that he had when he died, yet are
not on the list.
> No, there is only one source for the existence of the talisman, and
> that's Bidamon himself, 58 years after Emma died, when he was trying
> to sell it. Surely one should at least be skeptical of the claim.
Then shouldn't we be skeptical about the other items the Church
purchased from the money-grubbing Bidamon? He made money off of other
items, and none of those are considered fraudulent. The "enemy of the
Church" argument doesn't hold either, under the consideration that the
talisman wasn't considered a talisman until years and years and years
after the sale.
> I simply can't accept Quinn's work at face value, after perusing his
> later "Same Sex Dynamics..." and noting his problems afterward.
> Besides, the FAIR article footnotes Quinn's book as well, so it's not
> as if it's ignored.
I wouldn't accept Quinn's work at face value even if he were a
straight, white guy. I try to read everything somewhat critically.
But I also try not to reject someone's arguments because of sexual
preference, church-standing, or political persuasion (even if they are
tree-burning republicans, or communist-sympathizing democrats).
Charney
Guy R. Briggs
> ema...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping) wrote:
>> bout...@bellsouth.net (Ron Boutwell) wrote:
<deletia>
> I also noticed that FAIR discounts the possibility that EMMA
> wouldn't have known about the talisman. However, it is very
> reasonable that she wouldn't have known about the talisman
> because the magic books that discuss it specifically state
> that the talisman must remain a secret from all but the one
> who wears it. In other words, Emma not knowing about it
> until he died is hardly proof that Smith didn't own it and
> wear it around his neck until he died.
>
Several problems here. The first is that it wasn't around his neck,
but that it was in his pocket. According to Bidamon he heard Emma say
(many times) "that it was in the Prophet's pocket when he was martyred
at Carthage Ill ... She prized this piece very highly on account of its
being one of the Prophets intimate possessions." We wonder how much of
this was sales talk and how much was history.
What /is/ history is the account of James W. Woods, Smith's
"principal lawyer" at the end. He helped recover the bodies of Joseph
and Hyrum from Carthage and copied a "receipt from Joe Smith's wife of
the articles I found upon the person of Joe Smith." It was dated a week
after the murder and signed by Emma. Apparently, he had inventoried
everything and found "one hundred and thirty-five dollars and fifty
cents in gold and silver," along with the Prophet's gold ring and a
half dozen other pocket items. Emphasis on the word "pocket," the place
Bidamon reported it being when Smith was killed.
>
> I noted in the FAIR article points out that Bidamon was the
> illegitimate son of Emma's non-Mormon husband. <GASP!>
> Illigitimate? non-Mormon? Non of that information is even
> relevant.
>
Well, it is. Bidamon reported that Emma "prized this piece very
highly on account of its being one of the Prophets intimate
possessions." That being the case, how is it that one of Joseph's
natural sons didn't inherit it?
bestRegards, Guy.
James C. Miller
go off into discussions of sexual orientation, the
occult, or even Quinn himself unless those
conversations are placed clearly within the context
of discussions of Mormonism]
ema...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping) wrote in message news:<1035925...@news.supernews.com>...
I look forward to any demonstration of specific examples of where Dr.
Quinn slants his reseach to justify his sexual orientation. Remember,
in the absense of such specific examples, I'm afraid all that is being
done here is to voice an unsubstantiated opinion.
I would also appreciate a specific example demonstration of how Dr.
Quinn's sexual orientation has any impact whatsoever on his
scholarship about Smith's activities which some might characterize as
occult. In the absence of any such specific examples, one is tempted
to suspect that rejection on the grounds of sexual orientation of Dr.
Quinn's scholarship is just an ad hominem attack, long known to
scholars as a logical fallacy.
James C. Miller
miller...@cox.net
father of peace
>when the researcher slants
>his research to justify or legitimize his sin, they *are* disqualified
>from being a trustworthy research source.
We all slant our research in favor of our biases.
LdS supporters do it, and LdS detractors do it.
Love,
Absalom
--
Official web site of the Mormon Church
http://absalom.com/mormon-church
Free Ordination!!!
Ann Porter
news:1035v2c...@news.supernews.com...
> ema...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping) wrote in message
news:<1033b4f...@news.supernews.com>...
> > In article <102nftf...@news.supernews.com>,
> > It's entirely relevant. Illegitimate means the child (Charlie) might
> > not have had the same relationship with Emma as a natural child might.
<snip>
> In other words, Emma would have never given Charles the pendant
> because she probably wasn't very close to him. This argument ignores
> the fact that Charles had many other artifacts that he got from Emma.
> Somehow Charles was close enough to Emma to get those, but not close
> enough to her to get the one item that challenges the LDS
> misconception of a non-magical Smith.
According to "Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith" (Newell and Avery), Emma took
Charles in at the age of four, at his mother Nancy Abercrombie's request.
As Charles grew older, she hired Nancy to work for her, so she could be
close to her son and provide for her other children. Before Emma died, she
urged her husband, Lewis Bidamon, and Nancy to marry and provide Charles
"with proper parentage."
Charles is quoted as saying of Emma, "I was raised in her home...A noble
woman, living and showing charity for all, loving and blessed."
Ann
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
>> Except if Emma didn't know about it and it's supposed need
>> for secrecy, it would have been listed in his effects when
>> he died, don't you think? Or she might have mentioned it
>> at some point? At any rate, Emma made no mention about it
>> on record at all.
>
> For this argument to be convincing, we would have to have a
> reasonable expectation that the list items on Smith at his
> time of death was exhaustive. Unfortunately, we know that
> the list was NOT exhaustive. His gun and his hat are two
> items that he had when he died, yet are not on the list.
>
He had those items "on his person" when he died? The record clearly
states that the gun was dropped on the floor before he was shot and his
hat - even in the unlikely event that he had been wearing it inside the
jail - would not likely have still been on his head after being shot
and tumbling out a second-story window.
No, the inventory for which Emma signed, was a listing of personal
effects, including the contents of Smith's pockets. If you posit that
it wasn't in his pocket, you impeach the only witness to the talisman
belonging to Smith at all. The only reason to assume that the inventory
was not exhaustive is if you're trying to make the evidence fit the
conclusion.
bestRegards, Guy.
E. Mark Ping
Charney Hoffmann <charney_c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In other words, Emma would have never given Charles the pendant
>because she probably wasn't very close to him.
No, I didn't say or imply that. Please don't put words in my mouth.
>For this argument to be convincing, we would have to have a
>reasonable expectation that the list items on Smith at his time of
>death was exhaustive. Unfortunately, we know that the list was NOT
>exhaustive. His gun and his hat are two items that he had when he
>died, yet are not on the list.
As Guy already pointed out the gun and hat weren't on Joseph's body at
death. Yet the claim was (in Charles Bidamon's sworn affidavit) that
"it was in the Prophet's pocket when he was martyred at Carthage,
Ill." Pointing out that other objects not on his body weren't listed
only supports the conclusion that the talisman wasn't on his body.
>Then shouldn't we be skeptical about the other items the Church
>purchased from the money-grubbing Bidamon?
If not supported by corroborating testimony or evidence, then yes.
>He made money off of
>other items, and none of those are considered fraudulent. The "enemy
>of the Church" argument doesn't hold either, under the consideration
>that the talisman wasn't considered a talisman until years and years
>and years after the sale.
No one has claimed that either Bidamon was an "enemy of the Church"
only that Lewis wasn't "too friendly to the LDS Church".
Furthermore, I'm not familiar with other items Bidamon sold. Hence I
can't address your claim about them--though I wouldn't mind if you
elaborate on that point.
>> I simply can't accept Quinn's work at face value, after perusing
>> his later "Same Sex Dynamics..." and noting his problems afterward.
>> Besides, the FAIR article footnotes Quinn's book as well, so it's
>> not as if it's ignored.
>
>I wouldn't accept Quinn's work at face value even if he were a
>straight, white guy. I try to read everything somewhat critically.
>But I also try not to reject someone's arguments because of sexual
>preference, church-standing, or political persuasion (even if they
>are tree-burning republicans, or communist-sympathizing democrats).
Where did I reject someone's arguments because of sexual preference,
church standing, or political persuasion?
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Charney Hoffmann
> "Charney Hoffmann" <charney_c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1035v2c...@news.supernews.com...
> > ema...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping) wrote in message
> news:<1033b4f...@news.supernews.com>...
> > > In article <102nftf...@news.supernews.com>,
>
> > > It's entirely relevant. Illegitimate means the child (Charlie) might
> > > not have had the same relationship with Emma as a natural child might.
> <snip>
>
> According to "Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith" (Newell and Avery), Emma took
> Charles in at the age of four, at his mother Nancy Abercrombie's request.
> As Charles grew older, she hired Nancy to work for her, so she could be
> close to her son and provide for her other children. Before Emma died, she
> urged her husband, Lewis Bidamon, and Nancy to marry and provide Charles
> "with proper parentage."
>
> Charles is quoted as saying of Emma, "I was raised in her home...A noble
> woman, living and showing charity for all, loving and blessed."
Thank you Ann. Clearly, Emma and he had a good relationship. Hardly
one that would guarantee the other siblings would get all of Smith's
stuff.
Charney
E. Mark Ping
Charney Hoffmann <charney_c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Thank you Ann. Clearly, Emma and he had a good relationship. Hardly
>one that would guarantee the other siblings would get all of Smith's
>stuff.
Whew! Good thing no one claimed that.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
E. Mark Ping
James C. Miller <miller...@cox.net> wrote:
>ema...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping) wrote in message:
>> Of course not. We're all sinners. However when the researcher
>> slants his research to justify or legitimize his sin, they *are*
>> disqualified from being a trustworthy research source.
>
>I look forward to any demonstration of specific examples of where Dr.
>Quinn slants his reseach to justify his sexual orientation.
Note that I said to "justify or lgeitimize his sin", not his "sexual
orientation". Same-sex attraction itself is not a sin. Quinn attemts
in his book to make non-platonic same-sex relationships appear common
and condoned in the early LDS church.
>Remember, in the absense of such specific examples, I'm afraid all
>that is being done here is to voice an unsubstantiated opinion.
Several specific examples are enumerated in the following two
articles, from Farms Review of Books. Specifically addressing (and
refuting many of the arguments contained in) Same-Sex Dynamics...
The first one is relatively short, the second is much longer.
See:
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=279
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=280
If you're not a FARMS member, I believe a free 30-day trial of the
online access is available.
>I would also appreciate a specific example demonstration of how Dr.
>Quinn's sexual orientation has any impact whatsoever on his
>scholarship about Smith's activities which some might characterize as
>occult. In the absence of any such specific examples, one is tempted
>to suspect that rejection on the grounds of sexual orientation of Dr.
>Quinn's scholarship is just an ad hominem attack, long known to
>scholars as a logical fallacy.
Non sequitur.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Gene Fuller
"E. Mark Ping" <ema...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:103dn56...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <1036rki...@news.supernews.com>,
> James C. Miller <miller...@cox.net> wrote:
> >ema...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping) wrote in message:
> >> Of course not. We're all sinners. However when the researcher
> >> slants his research to justify or legitimize his sin, they *are*
> >> disqualified from being a trustworthy research source.
> >
> >I look forward to any demonstration of specific examples of where Dr.
> >Quinn slants his reseach to justify his sexual orientation.
Snip
> Several specific examples are enumerated in the following two
> articles, from Farms Review of Books. Specifically addressing (and
> refuting many of the arguments contained in) Same-Sex Dynamics...
>
> The first one is relatively short, the second is much longer.
>
> See:
> http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=279
> http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=280
I read the first one, completely. I had not followed what had happened with
Michael Quinn, so found it somewhat interesting I have been reading on the
longer one for what seems like hours and appear to be less than halfway
through it. Hidden in many many words, is what appears to me to be a
credible refutation of Quinn's methods, and his results. Perhaps, however,
we all see what we want to see, so those who have an ax to grind against the
Church will come nearer to accepting Dr. Quinn's work than those of us who
still are believers in the Restoration.
Snip
Charney Hoffmann
> In article <1035v2c...@news.supernews.com>,
> Charney Hoffmann <charney_c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In other words, Emma would have never given Charles the pendant
> >because she probably wasn't very close to him.
> Furthermore, I'm not familiar with other items Bidamon sold. Hence I
> can't address your claim about them--though I wouldn't mind if you
> elaborate on that point.
Bidamon also sold to the Church the "English translation manuscript fo
the 'Book of Abraham', a document in the handwriting of early convert
William W. Phelps. This document was published as part of the LDS
standard work, The Pearl of Great Price." Quinn p82.
I wonder how one could accept the one as legitimate while rejecting
the other as a product of fraud.
Charney
David Bowie
: Bidamon also sold to the Church the "English translation manuscript fo
: the 'Book of Abraham', a document in the handwriting of early convert
: William W. Phelps. This document was published as part of the LDS
: standard work, The Pearl of Great Price." Quinn p82.
: I wonder how one could accept the one as legitimate while rejecting
: the other as a product of fraud.
If it was actually verifiably in the handwriting of William W. Phelps, and
if the history of the document could be verified, that could help.
David, who knows a little bit about document verification
--
David Bowie http://pmpkn.net/lx
Jeanne's Two Laws of Chocolate: If there is no chocolate in the
house, there is too little; some must be purchased. If there is
chocolate in the house, there is too much; it must be consumed.
James C. Miller
<103ep35...@news.supernews.com>...
> > In article <1036rki...@news.supernews.com>,
> > James C. Miller <miller...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >I look forward to any demonstration of specific examples of where Dr.
> > >Quinn slants his reseach to justify his sexual orientation.
>
>
> > Several specific examples are enumerated in the following two
> > articles, from Farms Review of Books. Specifically addressing (and
> > refuting many of the arguments contained in) Same-Sex Dynamics...
> >
> > The first one is relatively short, the second is much longer.
> >
> > See:
> > http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=279
> > http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=280
>
> Hidden in many many words, is what appears to me to be a
> credible refutation of Quinn's methods, and his results. Perhaps, however,
> we all see what we want to see, so those who have an ax to grind against the
> Church will come nearer to accepting Dr. Quinn's work than those of us who
> still are believers in the Restoration.
FARMS, FAIR and BYU publications and articles are not written to
convince scholars, but to reassure believers. Outside of LDS circles,
these three apologist sources have no credibility because (1) they are
self-admitted defenders of the faith which means they have their own
ax to grind, (2) their material is not peer reviewed as generally
defined by the academic community and (3) their level of scholarship
ALMOST never rises to the minimum level required by the academic
community for peer-reviewed academic publications.
As far as I could tell (and I actually read both articles several
times), neither article has any credibility because of the three
reasons given above. In all fairness, I perceived that the first
article did make a limited attempt at actual scholarly assessment and
scored what I thought were one or two potentially valid criticisms
about some of Quinn's conclusions about statements of love between
same sex individuals being more overreaching than could be defended,
but in the end, the article's underlying bias obliterated the validity
of its conclusions. The second article made no such attempt and came
right out and said that the standard against which Quinn's work was to
be judged was not scholarship, but consistency with First Presidency
statements and church teachings. In addition, the use of
inflammatory, biased, and non academic language particularly in the
second article, such as "... the currently fashionable political
mythology of a special homosexual identity ... " removes the articles
from consideration as credible scholarly critique.
As a practical matter, outside of the two limited exceptions I pointed
out above, neither article displayed an serious attempt to apply
critical thinking or generally accepted principles of scholarship.
One of the most outrageous claims of the second was the attempt to
corroborate its critique of Quinn's work by recourse to letters to the
editor in the Logan Utah _Herald Journal_. The article said, "Between
7 March and 4 August 1996, for example, Cache Valley citizens
protested and disputed Quinn's historical method and claims. A
preliminary survey of Logan, Utah's Herald Journal respondents showed
them to be holders of doctoral, master's, and bachelor's degrees." My
personal opinion is that you have a very weak critique indeed if you
have to rely for corroboration on letters to the editor in a small,
conservative newspaper in the Mormon heartland.
I should have known when I did not exclude apologist sources for a
demonstration of Quinn's scholarly failures I might get non objective
stuff from FARMS, FAIR or BYU Publications. So let me restate this
more accurately: I look forward to any demonstration of specific
examples in peer reviewed articles of where Dr. Quinn slants his
research to justify his sexual orientation.
James C. Miller
miller...@cox.net
Charney Hoffmann
> "Gene Fuller" <gfuller1...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:
> <103ep35...@news.supernews.com>...
> > > In article <1036rki...@news.supernews.com>,
> > > James C. Miller <miller...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > >
> FARMS, FAIR and BYU publications and articles are not written to
> convince scholars, but to reassure believers. Outside of LDS circles,
> these three apologist sources have no credibility because (1) they are
> self-admitted defenders of the faith which means they have their own
> ax to grind, (2) their material is not peer reviewed as generally
> defined by the academic community and (3) their level of scholarship
> ALMOST never rises to the minimum level required by the academic
> community for peer-reviewed academic publications.
>
> As far as I could tell (and I actually read both articles several
> times), neither article has any credibility because of the three
> reasons given above.
When people say "Quinn has no credibility, because he's a Gay
ex-Mormon with an axe to grind", you and I would disagree. But here
you claim that FARMS and FAIR has no credibility because they are
Mormons with an axe to grind. Interesting.
I find it ludicrous that someone would mention Quinn's "same-sex
dynamics" in an attempt to discredit his work in the "magic
world-view", but I find it equally absurd to discredit FAIR just
because they're apologists.
> I look forward to any demonstration of specific
> examples in peer reviewed articles of where Dr. Quinn slants his
> research to justify his sexual orientation.
And I look forward to specific examples of how FAIR has misrepresented
Quinn's scholarship in "same-sex dynamics".
Charney, thinking hard about a goose and gander.
Charney Hoffmann
> And on that day, Charney Hoffmann chanted:
>
> : Bidamon also sold to the Church the "English translation manuscript fo
> : the 'Book of Abraham', a document in the handwriting of early convert
> : William W. Phelps. This document was published as part of the LDS
> : standard work, The Pearl of Great Price." Quinn p82.
>
> : I wonder how one could accept the one as legitimate while rejecting
> : the other as a product of fraud.
>
> If it was actually verifiably in the handwriting of William W. Phelps, and
> if the history of the document could be verified, that could help.
Good point!
Charney, who is unaware of any effort on the part of the Church to
dispute the fact that the manuscripts are the Pearl of Great Price,
much less challenge that they are in William W. Phelps' handwriting.
James C. Miller
> > FARMS, FAIR and BYU publications and articles are not written to
> > convince scholars, but to reassure believers. Outside of LDS circles,
> > these three apologist sources have no credibility because (1) they are
> > self-admitted defenders of the faith which means they have their own
> > ax to grind, (2) their material is not peer reviewed as generally
> > defined by the academic community and (3) their level of scholarship
> > ALMOST never rises to the minimum level required by the academic
> > community for peer-reviewed academic publications.
> >
> > As far as I could tell (and I actually read both articles several
> > times), neither article has any credibility because of the three
> > reasons given above.
>
> When people say "Quinn has no credibility, because he's a Gay
> ex-Mormon with an axe to grind", you and I would disagree. But here
> you claim that FARMS and FAIR has no credibility because they are
> Mormons with an axe to grind. Interesting.
You are absolutely correct that by themselves, the statements "Quinn
has no credibility, because he's a Gay ex-Mormon with and an ax to
grind," and "FARMS and FAIR have no credibility because they are
Mormon apologist organizations who have their own axes to grind," are
ad hominem attacks. As long as these statements are as far as it
goes, your point would be valid.
But there are two additional reasons - which I gave and which you did
not mention - why in general the non LDS academic community gives no
credibility to FARMS and FAIR: (1) no peer review process, and (2)
substandard and unacceptable scholarship. When the apologist
organizations' self-admitted bias is added to the lack of peer review
and substandard scholarship, the criticism is no longer ad hominem.
In my reaction to the two FARMS reviews I noted that the first made
only limited and ineffectual criticism of Quinn's scholarship while
the second abandoned any pretense of applying standards of scholarship
and instead based its arguments entirely on the comparison of Church
doctrine which Quinn's conclusions. That is, neither article was peer
reviewed and neither article approached the level of scholarship
required for peer review publication. As I noted, as one concrete
example, the second article actually stopped so low as reliance on
letters to the editor in a northern Utah newspaper.
>
> I find it ludicrous that someone would mention Quinn's "same-sex
> dynamics" in an attempt to discredit his work in the "magic
> world-view",
Well, that's precisely what happened in this thread. Here's the
passage so you can read it for yourself:
Start quote:
>I don't intend to go over every problem with the article. My only
>source is Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View", so I'll
>just recommend that book.
I simply can't accept Quinn's work at face value, after perusing his
later "Same Sex Dynamics..." and noting his problems afterward.
Besides, the FAIR article footnotes Quinn's book as well, so it's not
as if it's ignored.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
End quote.
> but I find it equally absurd to discredit FAIR just
> because they're apologists.
Me too. I read FARMS and FAIR articles and reviews because I DON'T
dismiss them simply because they're apologists. However, I keep
finding, as do scholars outside LDS circles, that FARMS and FAIR
articles seldom rise to the level of rigorous peer-reviewed
scholarship. In fact, the only FARMS article that I think could have
appeared in a peer-reviewed publication was the recent one by Dr.
Whiting on DNA problems with the BoM, "DNA and the Book of Mormon: A
Phylogenetic Perspective" by Dr. Michael F. Whiting, FARMS, Volume 12,
Number 1, 2003. The rest lack scholarship and appear to me to have
been written to comfort believers. There's nothing wrong with that,
per se, but that's a matter of faith and not scholarship.
> > I look forward to any demonstration of specific
> > examples in peer reviewed articles of where Dr. Quinn slants his
> > research to justify his sexual orientation.
>
> And I look forward to specific examples of how FAIR has misrepresented
> Quinn's scholarship in "same-sex dynamics".
In newsgroups, it's easy to miss what has been written in prior posts.
Consequently, I am delighted to recap what I wrote.
This concerned two reviews of Quinn's work in FARMS:
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=279
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=280
In the first, I found two limited scholarly assessments about some of
Quinn's conclusions about statements of love between same sex
individuals which even I thought could be more overreaching than could
be defended, but in the end, the article's underlying bias against
Quinn on the basis of his sexual orientation and not on scholarship
obliterated the validity of its conclusions.
Here are my three specific examples.
(1) The second article came right out and said that the standard
against which Quinn's work was to be judged was not scholarship, but
consistency with First Presidency statements and church teachings.
This pulls the article out of the universe of scholarship and puts it
into the universe of apologetics which have little or no credibility
for academics outside of LDS circles. In scholarly works, you
wouldn't judge Quinn's scholarship on the basis conformity with
contemporary LDS doctrine, though you might well note what current
doctrine is in comparison to earlier practices. In scholarly worsk,
you would judge Quinn's book on the basis of generally accepted
scholarly standards such as logic, quality of sources, and
defendability of conclusions
(2) In addition, the use of inflammatory, biased, and non academic
language particularly in the second article, such as "... the
currently fashionable political mythology of a special homosexual
identity ... " while a classic apologist statement, would be given no
credibility by non LDS academics and would almost certainly never
survive peer review.
(3) One of the most remarkable and nonscholarly claims of the second
was the attempt to corroborate its critique of Quinn's work by
recourse to letters to the editor in the Logan Utah _Herald Journal_.
The article said, "Between 7 March and 4 August 1996, for example,
Cache Valley citizens protested and disputed Quinn's historical method
and claims. A preliminary survey of Logan, Utah's Herald Journal
respondents showed them to be holders of doctoral, master's, and
bachelor's degrees." Such a statement would get the article rejected
by scholarly review.
> Charney, thinking hard about a goose and gander.
I agree with you, Charney, that neither apologist nor critic should
make ad hominem attacks.
James C. Miller
miller...@cox.net
Rob Perkins
>In my reaction to the two FARMS reviews I noted that the first made
>only limited and ineffectual criticism of Quinn's scholarship while
>the second abandoned any pretense of applying standards of scholarship
>and instead based its arguments entirely on the comparison of Church
>doctrine which Quinn's conclusions.
It's possible to successfully deconstruct someone without peer review.
Just use your head while you're reading it and check their sources.
I'll take Shipps over Quinn, and Brooks alongside Shipps.
Rob
I've been published! Woo hoo!
http://www.ornery.org
E. Mark Ping
James C. Miller <miller...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> In article <1036rki...@news.supernews.com>, James C. Miller
>>> <miller...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>I look forward to any demonstration of specific examples of where
>>>>Dr. Quinn slants his reseach to justify his sexual orientation.
>FARMS, FAIR and BYU publications and articles are not written to
>convince scholars, but to reassure believers.
Please cite any source that states this. The FARMS "about" statement
(found at: http://farms.byu.edu/aboutfarms.php) doesn't agree. The
FAIR purpose statement (found at the top of http://www.fair-lds.org/)
doesn't agree.
>three apologist sources have no credibility because (1) they are
>self-admitted defenders of the faith which means they have their own
>ax to grind
This means they have no credibility? If their research is shown to be
careful, documented, and accurate why would this affect their
credibility?
>The second article made no such attempt and came right out and said
>that the standard against which Quinn's work was to be judged was not
>scholarship, but consistency with First Presidency statements and
>church teachings.
So when the second article clearly showed how Quinn abused his
sources, you simply ignored that because of the source?
One example: Quinn used "and it is pleasing for friends to lie down
together, locked in the arms of love, to sleep and wake in each
other's embrace and renew their conversation" to support his idea that
Joseph Smith accepted the idea of "same-sex bedmates". Yet the full
quote is referring to the Resurrection, not to any mortal bed:
(I hope the mods will allow this full quote through.)
BEGIN QUOTE---------------------------------
I will tell you what I want. If tomorrow I shall be called to lie in
yonder tomb, in the morning of the resurrection, let me strike hands
with my father, and cry, "My father," and he will say "My son, my
son," as soon as the rock rends and before we come out of our graves.
And may we contemplate these things so? Yes, if we learn how to live
and how to die. When we lie down we contemplate how we may rise in the
morning; __and it is pleasing for friends to lie down together,
locked in the arms of love, to sleep and wake in each other's embrace
and renew their conversation.__
Would you think it strange if I relate what I have seen in vision in
relation to this interesting theme? Those who have died in Jesus
Christ may expect to enter into all that fruition of joy when they
come forth, which they possessed or anticipated here.
So plain was the vision, that I actually saw men, before they had
ascended from the tomb, as though they were getting up slowly. They
took each other by the hand and said to each other, "My father, my
son, my mother, my daughter, my brother, my sister." And when the
voice calls for the dead to arise, suppose I am laid by the side of my
father, what would be the first joy of my heart? To meet my father, my
mother, my brother, my sister; and when they are by my side, I embrace
them and they me.
END QUOTE---------------------------------
(I've added double underscores to indicate Quinn's quote.)
>I look forward to any demonstration of specific
>examples in peer reviewed articles of where Dr. Quinn slants his
>research to justify his sexual orientation.
Aren't you the least bit eager to think for yourself? I've just
demonstrated it, though I'm not peer reviewed. But then, you're not
peer reviewed either. Why even participate in usenet if you limit
your discussion to peer-reviewed articles?
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
E. Mark Ping
>>I simply can't accept Quinn's work at face value, after perusing his
>>later "Same Sex Dynamics..." and noting his problems afterward.
>>Besides, the FAIR article footnotes Quinn's book as well, so it's
>>not as if it's ignored.
>Me too. I read FARMS and FAIR articles and reviews because I DON'T
>dismiss them simply because they're apologists.
Then it should not be included in your list of reasons for rejecting
the articles.
> And I look forward to specific examples of how FAIR has misrepresented
> Quinn's scholarship in "same-sex dynamics".
And I've presented them.
>I agree with you, Charney, that neither apologist nor critic should
>make ad hominem attacks.
My statement was that I could not accept Quinn's work at face value.
That doesn't mean that I reject it out of hand, but rather that I
would have to double check his citations and conclusions.
You said you *have done that* with the Farms articles but rejected
them irrespective of content, because of tone or methodology. If
Quinn's sources are valid and his conclusions reasonable, I would
accept those conclusions. The same with the Farms articles. You seem
to accept Quinn's sources and conclusions merely because he has had
peer-reviewed work (and it's *never* been stated so far in the thread
that the two books--"Early Mormonism..." and "Same Sex Dynamics..."
have been peer-reviweed).
You can disregard Farms articles at face value just like I do with
Quinn's books. However, when the article shows a quote that has been
severely twisted by Quinn, and you ignore that because of the status
of the journal, you have no credibility with respect to any serious
scholarship.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
John S. Colton
[snip]
>...(and it's *never* been stated so far in the thread
>that the two books--"Early Mormonism..." and "Same Sex Dynamics..."
>have been peer-reviweed).
[snip]
Actually, I was wondering this exact thing. How about it, James, did
these books of Quinn's go through the peer-review process? (I really
don't know, I haven't read the books.)
John
*****
John's newsgroup motto:
"A soft answer turneth away wrath:
but grievous words stir up anger." --Prov. 15:1
*****
James C. Miller
> In article <1046htk...@news.supernews.com>,
> James C. Miller <miller...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Me too. I read FARMS and FAIR articles and reviews because I DON'T
> >dismiss them simply because they're apologists.
>
> Then it should not be included in your list of reasons for rejecting
> the articles.
I'll tell you what, Mark, I'll stop using FARMS' bias for rejecting
its articles, if you'll stop using Quinn's sexual orientation for
rejecting his work. In addition, I'll continue regularly reading
FARMS and FAIR articles and reviews if you'll start regularly reading
anti-Mormon stuff. Deal?
> My statement was that I could not accept Quinn's work at face value.
> That doesn't mean that I reject it out of hand, but rather that I
> would have to double check his citations and conclusions.
I see little difference between rejecting Quinn's work at face value
and rejecting it out of hand.
>
> You said you *have done that* with the Farms articles but rejected
> them irrespective of content, because of tone or methodology.
Actually, I rejected them because of content. Dr. Whiting's FARMS
article, which I referenced in another post, I accepted because of
content. And, while we're on the subject, tone and methodology are
excellent means of evaluating content.
> You seem
> to accept Quinn's sources and conclusions merely because he has had
> peer-reviewed work (and it's *never* been stated so far in the thread
> that the two books--"Early Mormonism..." and "Same Sex Dynamics..."
> have been peer-reviweed).
Because I haven't read Quinn's same sex book, I haven't come to any
conclusions about accepting or rejecting it and consequently I haven't
made any statements in this forum about accepting or rejecting it.
Quinn's "Same Sex Dynamics ... " book was not peer-reviewed as such.
Books normally aren't, though articles and papers are. However, "Same
Sex Dynamics ..." was published by the highly respected University of
Illinois Press which has a reputation to uphold and which it would
probably not want to tarnish by publishing a poorly researched or
poorly written historical book. On top of that "Same Sex Dynamics ..."
received the 1997 American Historical Association (AHA) award for best
book by an independent scholar. The AHA is a nonprofit membership
organization founded in 1884 and incorporated by Congress in 1889 for
the promotion of historical studies, the collection and preservation
of historical documents and artifacts, and the dissemination of
historical research. It is THE association for professional
historians so it is a certainty that Quinn's book was poured over by
really critical and unsympathetic historians before the AHA gave it
the award.
Mark may reject the book at face value because he thinks Quinn's
sexual orientation has something to do with the quality of Quinn's
scholarship. But the highly respected University of Illinois thought
otherwise and was sufficiently impressed by Quinn's scholarship to
publish the work. In addition, the highly respected AHA was
sufficiently impressed by Quinn's scholarship to give it the best book
by an independent scholar award. Now whose conclusions do you think I
should pay more attention to (though I withhold acceptance or
rejection until I actually read the book), those of Mark whose
credentials I'm not aware of, or those of a highly respected
university publisher and those of the venerated AHA?
> You can disregard Farms articles at face value just like I do with
> Quinn's books.
As I've repeatedly stated, I don't disregard FARMS articles at face
value and I read them regularly for content. And I've even pointed to
one FARMS article, the one by Dr. Whiting, which I accepted on the
basis of content. I dare say my apologist friends don't read critical
or anti-Mormon sources like I read apologist material.
> However, when the article shows a quote that has been
> severely twisted by Quinn, and you ignore that because of the status
> of the journal, you have no credibility with respect to any serious
> scholarship.
My credibility is not at stake here. That of Quinn and FARMS are and
right now, outside of LDS circles, Dr. Quinn is highly respected, has
lots of credibility, and receives awards for his articles and books
while FARMS articles and reviews are not taken seriously by
professional academics and historians because of the lack of
peer-review and substandard scholarship.
I'm not convinced that any quote has been "twisted" (a term which
would not be found in a peer-reviewed article) by Quinn. If FARMS has
sufficient confidence in the validity of its adverse conclusions about
Dr. Quinn's scholarship, it should submit such a review to a
peer-reviewed journal for publication. That's what professional
historians and academics do and that's what I've suggested several
times here.
If FARMS scholarship is as solid as believers are told, I see no
reason why FARMS reviews and articles should not be submitted to and
accepted by peer-reviewed journals. I would not be surprised if Dr.
Whiting's FARMS article, referred to above, were accepted. Indeed, I
hereby make the offer to buy the U.S. Post Office stamps to send any
FARMS article to any peer-reviewed journal. I'm dead serious.
James C. Miller
miller...@cox.net
E. Mark Ping
>I'll tell you what, Mark, I'll stop using FARMS' bias for rejecting
>its articles, if you'll stop using Quinn's sexual orientation for
>rejecting his work.
Since I've never used that argument, that's fine with me.
>In addition, I'll continue regularly reading FARMS and FAIR articles
>and reviews if you'll start regularly reading anti-Mormon stuff.
Non sequitur.
>I see little difference between rejecting Quinn's work at face value
>and rejecting it out of hand.
Please think about the difference between my saying:
"I can not accept Quinn's work at face value" and your assertion that:
"I reject Quinn's work at face value."
>And, while we're on the subject, tone and methodology are
>excellent means of evaluating content.
Then you've got to reject Quinn's work.
>Quinn's "Same Sex Dynamics ... " book was not peer-reviewed as such.
As such? Is that like not being pregnant "as such"?
>However, "Same Sex Dynamics ..." was published by the highly
>respected University of Illinois Press
Argument from authority.
>On top of that "Same Sex Dynamics ..."
>received the 1997 American Historical Association (AHA) award for best
>book by an independent scholar.
Argument from authority. Surely you have noticed the politicization
of same-sex relationship issues. You don't think that any
organization would champion a work which aligns with its own political
agenda?
Say like the reclassification the APA (THE association for
psychiatrists) did of homosexuality.
>My credibility is not at stake here.
Yes it is. As is Quinn's.
>I'm not convinced that any quote has been "twisted" (a term which
>would not be found in a peer-reviewed article) by Quinn.
I didn't know that peer-review placed restrictions on legitimate
vocabulary.
Your fixation on peer-review as a qualifier of legitimate discussion
continues to amaze me. Why are you reading and contributing to
usenet? There is no peer-review here. Each participant actually has
to think for himself and evaluate the evidence for arguments on his
own.
I showed a direct quote that Quinn used to suggest that Joseph Smith
advocated having same-sex bedmates. You may not be convinced that's
the case, but you haven't explained why. Appealing to the concept of
"peer-review" (especially when the book hasn't been peer reivewed) is
no substitute.
So please, go ahead and explain why you haven't been convinced. You
don't even have to use the word "twisted".
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
James C. Miller
over peer review, should be moved to a more appropriate
forum.]
ema...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping) wrote in message news:<104jt5q...@news.supernews.com>...
> In article <104ft53...@news.supernews.com>,
> James C. Miller <miller...@cox.net> wrote:
> >ema...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping) wrote:
>
> >I'll tell you what, Mark, I'll stop using FARMS' bias for rejecting
> >its articles, if you'll stop using Quinn's sexual orientation for
> >rejecting his work.
>
> Since I've never used that argument, that's fine with me.
I'm sorry, I thought you HAD used that argument. Earlier in the
thread you said, "I simply can't accept Quinn's work at face value,
after perusing his later 'Same Sex Dynamics...' and noting his
problems afterward..."
Another poster responded: "Just because someone is a sinner doesn't
mean that they are disqualified from understanding LdS doctrine,
practice, and history."
To which you answered, "Of course not. We're all sinners. However
when the researcher slants his research to justify or legitimize his
sin, they *are* disqualified from being a trustworthy research
source."
There are certainly several different defendable ways to interpret
this exchange. One of them is that you rejected Quinn's work because
you thought he wrote it to justify or legitimize his homosexual sin.
>
> >In addition, I'll continue regularly reading FARMS and FAIR articles
> >and reviews if you'll start regularly reading anti-Mormon stuff.
>
> Non sequitur.
Your definition of non sequitur seems to differ from mine. But
regardless of definition, I point out that I look at both sides of the
question while you appear to consider only the LDS side. As examples,
I regularly read FARMS and FAIR material (some of which I actually
accept as valid as I have many times pointed out in other exchanges),
but you seem to limit yourself to just FARMS and FAIR and avoid and
discount non LDS sources. Normally "fair and balanced" would require
serious consideration of both sides. If you don't even read the other
side, you can't consider it.
>
> >I see little difference between rejecting Quinn's work at face value
> >and rejecting it out of hand.
>
> Please think about the difference between my saying:
> "I can not accept Quinn's work at face value" and your assertion that:
> "I reject Quinn's work at face value."
I would if I could see a difference. In my mind, "not accept" is the
functional equivalent of "reject."
>
> >And, while we're on the subject, tone and methodology are
> >excellent means of evaluating content.
>
> Then you've got to reject Quinn's work.
Perhaps I will after I read it. All I know right now is that FARMS
rejects it and the University of Illinois and the American Historical
Association promote and laud it.
>
> >Quinn's "Same Sex Dynamics ... " book was not peer-reviewed as such.
>
> As such? Is that like not being pregnant "as such"?
I explicitly stated that specifically there was no peer review of this
book, and in general no peer review of academic books.
I used "as such" as my transition bridge to point out that while the
book lacked publication in a peer-review journal (which is the tight
definition of the peer-review process), other respected historians had
indeed scrutinized it carefully and decided (1) the scholarship was
good enough to be published by the University of Illinois Press, and
(2) the scholarship was good enough to award it AHA's best book by an
independant scholar award. The high reputation of the University of
Illinois Press and of the AHA are valid and entirely acceptable
criteria to take into account when judging the book. Just because the
UIP published it is no reason to accept it on that basis only.
Similarly, just because the AHA gave it an award is no reason to
accept it on that basis only. But both are valid and acceptable
reasons for considering it to make your own judgements.
>
> >However, "Same Sex Dynamics ..." was published by the highly
> >respected University of Illinois Press
>
> Argument from authority.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Were one to state that
Quinn's work was absolutely worthless and lacked any credibility at
all because FARMS said so, that would NOT be "argument from
authority." But if I point out that the book's publisher enjoys a
substantial reputation for high quality academic scholarship which
suggests the book should be considered seriously, then that IS
"argument from authority." That apparently being the case, your
definition of "argument from authority" and mine differ.
At the same time, I'm delighted to have the concept of any logical
fallacy introduced into this discussion. For one thing, this use
above allows precedent for me in the future to object on the grounds
of "argument from authority" whenever LDS say a doctrine is to be
believed and accepted because the living prophet said it or because
Scripture said it. Should LDS object, I'll point out that Mr. Ping,
one of this newsgroup's esteemed apologists, introduced the use of
this specific logical fallacy, thus making it fair game for critics to
use, too. The sword of the use of logical fallacies cuts both ways.
>
> >On top of that "Same Sex Dynamics ..."
> >received the 1997 American Historical Association (AHA) award for best
> >book by an independent scholar.
>
> Argument from authority. Surely you have noticed the politicization
> of same-sex relationship issues. You don't think that any
> organization would champion a work which aligns with its own political
> agenda?
Again, your definition of "argument from authority" differs from mine.
Yes, I have noticed the politization of same-sex relationships on
both sides of the question. And I call for documentation that the AHA
has any political agenda one way or another concerning gays.
>
> Say like the reclassification the APA (THE association for
> psychiatrists) did of homosexuality.
Please provide documentation for the supposed gay-centric agenda by
APA.
<snip>
> >I'm not convinced that any quote has been "twisted" (a term which
> >would not be found in a peer-reviewed article) by Quinn.
>
> I didn't know that peer-review placed restrictions on legitimate
> vocabulary.
Perhaps you haven't read any peer-reviewed articles. I have read many
from all kinds of different fields' journals. "Twisted" to refer to
interpretation would be considered inflammatory, unacademic,
illigitimate for scholarly purposes, and would not generally be
allowed. The only time you're going to read "twisted" in a
peer-reviewed journal's article is when it describes something like a
ribbon being twisted.
>
> Your fixation on peer-review as a qualifier of legitimate discussion
> continues to amaze me. Why are you reading and contributing to
> usenet? There is no peer-review here. Each participant actually has
> to think for himself and evaluate the evidence for arguments on his
> own.
Perhaps you haven't read many usenet newsgroups. Reference to
peer-review on a wide variety of usenet newsgroups has a long and
honored tradition, usually used to indicate the quality of source
material. It is not a panacea for determining truth, but it has a
valid and much used place in educated and informed discussion in
usenet newsgroups.
> I showed a direct quote that Quinn used to suggest that Joseph Smith
> advocated having same-sex bedmates.
Despite considerable Google searches through this newsgroup, I was
genuinely unable to find any such direct quote, though I was able to
find the URLS to the articles. Perhaps you'd care to restate the
quote?
> You may not be convinced that's
> the case, but you haven't explained why.
I explained that I haven't formed any opinions of my own one way or
another on Quinn's "Same-Sex Dynamics ..." book because I haven't read
it yet and thus haven't read the subject quote and attempted to
compare it to the original.
> Appealing to the concept of
> "peer-review" (especially when the book hasn't been peer reivewed) is
> no substitute.
I applied the concept of peer-review to the referenced FARMS articles
and noted that neither had been through any peer-review process.
>
> So please, go ahead and explain why you haven't been convinced. You
> don't even have to use the word "twisted".
I explained that I haven't formed any opinions of my own one way or
another on Quinn's "Same-Sex Dynamics ..." book because I haven't read
it yet and thus haven't read the subject quote and attempted to
compare it to the original.
But I have read the two FARMS articles and was not impressed.
The first article did make a limited attempt at actual scholarly
assessment and
scored what I thought were one or two potentially valid criticisms
about some of Quinn's conclusions about statements of love between
same sex individuals being more overreaching than could be defended,
but in the end, the article's underlying and crystal clear bias
obliterated most of the validity of its conclusions in my mind. I
perceived that the author had no intention of presenting a fair and
balanced assessment.
The second article had three serious problems I could see, which
called into question the validity of its conclusions.
1) It came right out and said that the standard against which Quinn's
work was to be judged was not scholarship, but consistency with First
Presidency statements and church teachings.
(2) The use of inflammatory, biased, and non academic language
particularly in the second article, such as "... the currently
fashionable political mythology of a special homosexual identity ... "
is not scholarly, would almost surely get this article rejected in any
peer-review process, and raises reasonable questions about the
objectivity of the author.
(3) One of the most outrageous claims of the second was the attempt to
corroborate its critique of Quinn's work by recourse to letters to the
editor in the Logan Utah _Herald Journal_. The article said, "Between
7 March and 4 August 1996, for example, Cache Valley citizens
protested and disputed Quinn's historical method and claims. A
preliminary survey of Logan, Utah's Herald Journal respondents showed
them to be holders of doctoral, master's, and bachelor's degrees." My
personal opinion is that you have a very weak critique indeed if you
have to rely for corroboration on letters to the editor in a small,
conservative newspaper in the Mormon heartland. As far as
peer-reviewed publications are concerned, you normally don't see any
use of letters to the editors to corroborate your points. While such
a use would no doubt amuse the editors and peer scholars reviewing the
article, none would take it seriously.
James C. Miller
miller...@cox.net
E. Mark Ping
That's not quite right. I do not dismiss his research because
of his same-sex attraction, nor because his motivation was to justify
homosexual sin It's his **misrepresentation of fact** in his research
which makes it impossible for me to accept his research without
personal verification.
>If you don't even read the other side, you can't consider it.
However you specifically referred to "anti-Mormon stuff" as being the
other side. Anti-Mormon works have no value to anyone.
>I would if I could see a difference. In my mind, "not accept" is the
>functional equivalent of "reject."
However, "not accept AT FACE VALUE" is not the same as "reject at face
value". In order to accept Quinn's work I would have to personally
validate every source he uses, since it's been shown that he is
dishonest in his quotes and conclusions.
>Perhaps I will after I read it. All I know right now is that FARMS
>rejects it and the University of Illinois and the American Historical
>Association promote and laud it.
FARMS presents precise examples of Quinn's work that you can accept or
reject. You claim to have read the two articles I posted URL's to, so
you have read at least some of Quinn's work.
>> Argument from authority.
>
>Let me see if I understand this correctly. Were one to state that
>Quinn's work was absolutely worthless and lacked any credibility at
>all because FARMS said so, that would NOT be "argument from
>authority."
I really wonder how you got this. I didn't ever say that because
FARMS rejects the work anyone must reject it. In fact, the exact
quote that I used to mention the articles (including the context of
your responses) was:
>>Posted by James C. Miller:
>>>I look forward to any demonstration of specific examples of where Dr.
>>>Quinn slants his reseach to justify his sexual orientation.
>>
>Posted by Mark Ping:
>>Note that I said to "justify or lgeitimize his sin", not his "sexual
>>orientation". Same-sex attraction itself is not a sin. Quinn attemts
>>in his book to make non-platonic same-sex relationships appear common
>>and condoned in the early LDS church.
>>
>>>Remember, in the absense of such specific examples, I'm afraid all
>>>that is being done here is to voice an unsubstantiated opinion.
>>
>>Several specific examples are enumerated in the following two
>>articles, from Farms Review of Books. Specifically addressing (and
>>refuting many of the arguments contained in) Same-Sex Dynamics...
You asked for examples of Quinn's slanted research, and I said that
the articles had examples of said slanted research. I did not claim
that because FARMS gave a thumbs down all and sundry were obliged to
do so in unison. I specifically said there were examples. Rather
than debate the issues of peer-review, I'd suggest you address those
examples presented in the articles.
>For one thing, this use
>above allows precedent for me in the future to object on the grounds
>of "argument from authority" whenever LDS say a doctrine is to be
>believed and accepted because the living prophet said it or because
>Scripture said it. Should LDS object, I'll point out that Mr. Ping,
>one of this newsgroup's esteemed apologists, introduced the use of
>this specific logical fallacy, thus making it fair game for critics
>to use, too.
Come now, surely you can see the difference here, and the personal
attack is uncalled for. I certainly have never been 'one of this
newsgroups esteemed apologists'--in fact I only recently returned to
participation here after some hiatus.
The implication that others here are not familiar with logical
fallacies is incorrect as well, of course.
Argument from authority is a logical fallacy in research. It is *not*
an argument against revelation, because the nature of revelation is
that it is received from one in authority.
>Please provide documentation for the supposed gay-centric agenda by
>APA.
See the affiliated "Committee on Lesbian and Gay History" for details.
>> I showed a direct quote that Quinn used to suggest that Joseph
>> Smith advocated having same-sex bedmates.
>
>Despite considerable Google searches through this newsgroup, I was
>genuinely unable to find any such direct quote, though I was able to
>find the URLS to the articles. Perhaps you'd care to restate the
>quote?
One such quote can be found in my post on 2004-03-02, and can be found
(at least for now) at (watch for word wrap):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl15666584d&selm=104ab4cmp9da604%40news.supernews.com
>> So please, go ahead and explain why you haven't been convinced.
>> You don't even have to use the word "twisted".
[snip]
>But I have read the two FARMS articles and was not impressed.
Go back, read the articles, and compare the quotes. I'll be
interested to see what you think.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
James C. Miller
replies topical. Thank you.]
ema...@soda.csua.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping) wrote in message news:<1055hek...@news.supernews.com>...
> In article <104p91i...@news.supernews.com>,
> James C. Miller <miller...@cox.net> wrote:
> >If you don't even read the other side, you can't consider it.
>
> However you specifically referred to "anti-Mormon stuff" as being the
> other side. Anti-Mormon works have no value to anyone.
>
I've found anti-Mormon material to have some valid points. Any
blanket rejection of "anti-Mormon" material means that person will not
have access to the valid points to consider.
We all have the choice of reading only one side of the discussion, or
both sides. There's no getting around the problem that you can't
consider material you chose not to read. I read as much of both sides
as I can so I can make intelligent decisions and I recommend this
approach.
James C. Miller
miller...@cox.net
E. Mark Ping
>> However you specifically referred to "anti-Mormon stuff" as being
>> the other side. Anti-Mormon works have no value to anyone.
>I've found anti-Mormon material to have some valid points. Any
>blanket rejection of "anti-Mormon" material means that person will
>not have access to the valid points to consider.
Perhaps you have a different definition of anti-Mormon work--it is not
the same thing as all work critical of LDS, but is specifically the
polemical writings. Having read several of the works in that category
and finding vastly more error than truth, I'm comfortable in rejecting
them as a group.
One can hold opinions contrary to or pursue research that does not
support LDS church teachings, and that doesn't make you anti-Mormon.
There is value in reading that work. But those whose agenda is attack
the LDS church drown any signal in their noise, and simply aren't
worth consideration.
Even if they're peer-reviewed. ;)
>There's no getting around the problem that you can't consider
>material you chose not to read. I read as much of both sides as I
>can so I can make intelligent decisions and I recommend this
>approach.
Baloney. We choose what to read or not all the time. For instance,
you apparently have chosen not to read the clear examples of Quinn's
willful misinterpretation of sources to forward his agenda. You
really can't take the high ground on that issue.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
James C. Miller
My hold on the high ground stands. I DID read them. As a classic
example of not being able to consider what you do not read, apparently
you didn't read my 2004-02-27 20:39:19 PST post in this very thread.
Had you read that, you would have learned that I read FARMS and FAIR
stuff all the time, and, indeed, DID read the two FARMS reviews of
Quinn's same sex book:
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=279
http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=280
and I gave specific objections to the reviews.
In all fairness, I perceived that the first article by Klaus J. Hansen
DID make a limited attempt at actual scholarly assessment and scored
what I thought were two valid criticisms about some of Quinn's
conclusions about statements of love between same sex individuals
being more overreaching than could be defended, but in the end the
article's underlying bias obliterated the validity of its conclusions.
The second article by Mssrs. George L. Milton and Rhett S. James made
no such attempt at scholarly debate and came right out and said that
the standard against which Quinn's work was to be judged was not
scholarship, but consistency with contemporary 1st Presidency
statements and church teachings.
In addition, the use of inflammatory, biased, and non academic
language particularly in the Milton / James review, such as " ... the
currently fashionable political mythology of a special homosexual
identity ... " veers from the path of objective scholarship.
One of the least defendable claims of the Milton/James article was the
attempt to corrobrate its critique of Quinn's work by recourse to
letters to the editor in the Logan Utah _Herald Journal_. Mssrs.
Milton and James wrote, "Between 7 March and 4 August 1996, for
example, Cache Valley citizens protested and disputed Quinn's
historical method and claims. A preliminary survey of Logan, Utah's
_Herald Journal_ respondents showed them to be holders of doctoral,
master's and bachelor's degrees." My personal opinion is that you
have a very weak critique indeed if you have to rely for corroboration
on letters to the editor in a small, conservative newspaper in the
Mormon heartland and then try to claim, presumably with a straight
face, that the academic backgrounds of the writers of the letters to
the editor in any way made them qualified them to voice validly
academic critiques of Quinn's work.
That you had not read this earlier response in this very thread and
thus erroneously thought I hadn't read the FARMS reviews, I believe,
is an excellent example of the point that a person cannot consider
what what he does not read.
Besides the fact that I read both sides of many questions while some
apologists don't, I also do not reject articles because of single
flaws. I felt Mr. Hansen's FARMS article had some limited validity,
though I disagreed with its conclusions. As a published,
award-winning nonfiction author myself, I know that most articles have
some mistakes or flaws and that it's a mistake to throw out the baby
with the bathwater. I try to learn something from everything I read,
even if I don't agree with it.
And that's why I as a critic am registered on the FARMS site to read
its material while most apologists here never read any non LDS
material about the LDS Church. That means I can consider both sides
of the questions while those specific apologists cannot.
Jimbo
miller...@cox.net
E. Mark Ping
>>For instance,
>> you apparently have chosen not to read the clear examples of Quinn's
>> willful misinterpretation of sources to forward his agenda.
>
But while you addressed them in general terms (yes, I did read your
posts to that effect--all of them, since you keep repeating yourself),
but you did *not* address the quotes the articles present.
--
Mark Ping
ema...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Singh
Charney Hoffmann wrote:
> "Ron Boutwell" <bout...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<1027vjb...@news.supernews.com>...
> > Can anyone shed light on this topic. Alegedly, Joseph Smith had a silver
> > pendant in his pocket at the time he was martyred. Again, aledgedly it was
> > a "masonic jewel" as it was referred to by his widow. However, I have seen a
> > picture of this pendant. The emblams and inscriptions upon it are not
> > masonic at all. Trust me on that one. I have been a 32nd degree Freemason
> > for many years and have studied the symbols. This was not a masonic
> > pendant.
> >
> > My question: What was it? I've heard it referred to as a Jupiter pendant
> > too. However, I am not familiar with that term.
>
If this is what I think it is, it is more Elizabethan than Masonic. I've seen items referred to as
Jupiter talismans; they're all over publications that claim to be metaphysical, new-agey, or outright
Wiccan/Pagan. I understand they share a closer link to an alchemist and "mage" of the Tudor era-I think
his name was John Dees-than to anything else; Dees was the Jeane Dixon of his day and court astrologer to
Queen Elizabeth the First, if I recall my early learning at Hogwarts well enough. I don't think they're
at all Masonic, and frankly i figure that such things are a way that unscrupulous folk take advantage of
poor people looking for a quick fix.
Baha